Training in Alternative Food Distribution Systems (AFDS):

Regional logistics

Written by the Grundtvig Project Group “Building Regional Produce Supply Chains:

Logistics for Short Circuit Agriculture”, 2014-2015

2

Note

This document was first published as an online manual in September 2015.

This publication has been made possible by a financial contribution from the European Union under the Life Long Learning Grundtvig program. It reflects

the views only of the authors, and the commission cannot be held responsible

for any use which may be made of the information contained herein.

These guidelines were created within the frame of a project called “Building Regional Produce Supply Chains: Logistics for Short Circuit Agriculture”. The

document provides training material, to be used by anyone giving a training of AFDS, or willing to learn about building logistics for local food systems.

All the project partner organizations have been involved in writing this report. We have used graphic representations throughout this document in order to

visualize the different practices and strategies presented. Four organizations, Urgenci (lead partner), Voedselteams, die Agronauten and Luomuliitto, shared

the responsibilities for managing the project. The training sessions took place in France, Belgium, Finland and Germany.

Authors: Dominik Bednarek, Didier Bloch, Cathy Bouffartique, Caty Cordeiro,

Monique Diano, Sini Forssell, Geert Goeman, Samuel Hevin, Thomas Klein, Marie Maurage, Sara Meissner, Wim Merckx, Jocelyn Parot, Nicolas Pelloquin,

Maria del Rosario, Thomas Snellman, Peter Volz, Philipp Weckenbrock.

3

4

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5

MODULE 1: HOW TO AGREE ON CORE VALUES, HOW TO BUILD A COMMON VISION ... 8

Building-block 1: Collectively identifying the basis and objectives of the project ......................... 8

Building-block 2: Defining the ideal system and identifying its participants.................................. 9

Building-block 3: Decision-making, Governance and Organisational set-up ............................... 11

Building-block 4: Search the right legal status .............................................................................. 11

Building-block 5 : Reflecting on efficiency ................................................................................... 16

MODULE 2: BALANCING OFFER AND DEMAND .................................................................... 20

Building Block 6: Defining and understanding the potential of the area ....................................... 20

Building-block 7: What is the eaters demand? Who are the eaters? .............................................. 23

Building-block 8: Projecting Production and Harvests, setting up an availability calendar.......... 25

Building-block 9: Cost/Price-Building .......................................................................................... 26

Building-block 10: Breaking Even, Looking for Financial Stability ............................................. 27

MODULE 3: LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................. 29

Building-block 11: Distribution/Nodes/Intermediaries and Storage/Cooling Hub ........................ 29

Building-block 12: Synergies and collaboration ............................................................................ 32

Building-block 13: Sharing Group management tasks among stakeholders ................................. 33

Building-block 14: Managing stocks and orders ........................................................................... 33

Building-block 15: Transport Means and Materials ...................................................................... 36

Building-block 16: All what you want to avoid: Waste, Emissions and Foodprint ....................... 36

Building-block 17: Choosing the structure - AFDS Tour ............................................................. 37

MODULE 4: EFFECTIVE COORDINATION, RELATIONS OF PROXIMITY AND SENSE OF

CO-OWNERSHIP ............................................................................................................................. 42

Building-blocks 18: Internal Communication, Decision-making .................................................. 42

Building-blocks 19: External Communication ............................................................................. 43

Building-blocks 20: Building Trust through Alternative Screening Methods ............................... 44

Building Block 21: Developing Membership ................................................................................ 47

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 49

5

Introduction

This document is intended to inform and inspire networks and organisations active in developing Alternative Food Distribution Systems (AFDS) in Europe.

There is a need to share experiences between all local and regional food

networks across Europe. The term AFDS refers to a number of different initiatives and models: many different forms coexist, such as short-chain

circuits, community supported agriculture (CSA), vegetable box-schemes, food cooperatives... All have in common to be based on the strength of the direct

relationship between food chain actors. They are all different ways to bring food production and distribution back to a human scale.

A growth for these alternative food systems is currently observed, with increasing numbers of farmers and citizens joining the movement. At the same

time, these initiatives play a prominent role in ongoing debates on the fundamental aspects of the dominant food systems. They are perceived as a

way to challenge the position of dominant and industrialized food systems, by showing alternatives are possible.

All along a series of European network events organized during the 2010-2013

period, the need for a collective reflection on the logistics of Regional distribution systems emerged. A major landmark on this long journey was the

Nyeleni Europe Forum on Food Sovereignty held in Krems, Austria, in August 2011. During one of the workshops, dozens of local food activists started

collecting experience in Alternative food systems gained in various European countries. Their goal was to list the building blocks that are necessary to shape

a resilient AFDS.

There seems to be quite a lot of stages and processes that are common to all

nascent AFDS. The Building blocks, a list of practical aspects you have to keep in mind when setting up your own food system, is an answer to the need for

further sharing of resources. These Building blocks, meaning all the elements that are essential for organising robust regional logistics, gave the real trigger

for the development of this training document.

Some profound social and democratic values were the basic ingredients to design this training, such as transparency and trust, horizontality and

participation. As for the alternative food networks, choosing local food should not be fully understood in a classical consumption choice theory. For most of

the core groups involved in AFDS, it is also taking one's share of responsibility as an active citizen.

These systems are built with tools and methods that are respectful of these cardinal values. They offer a frame to act day-by-day for a radical change

within food production and distribution.

6

One of the main common source of inspiration that all participants share is the

list of the ten Teikei principles. It was written in november 1978 by the Japan

Organic Association (see the Box below). Teikei, which means “cooperation”, has been one of the driving forces of the Japanese organic movement since the

early 1970s. TEN PRINCIPLES OF TEIKEI

1. Principle of mutual assistance. The essence of this partnership lies, not in trading

itself, but in the friendly relationship between people. Therefore, both producers and

consumers should help each other on the basis of mutual understanding: this relation

should be established through the reflection of past experiences.

2. Principle of intended production. Producers should, through consultation with

consumers, intend to produce the maximum amount and maximum variety of produce

within the capacity of the farms.

3. Principle of accepting the produce. Consumers should accept all the produce that has

been grown according to previous consultation between both groups, and their diet

should depend as much as possible on this produce.

4. Principle of mutual concession in the price decision. In deciding the price of the

produce, producers should take full account of savings in labor and cost, due to grading

and packaging processes being curtailed, as well as of all their produce being accepted;

and consumers should take into full account the benefit of getting fresh, safe, and tasty

foods.

5. Principle of deepening friendly relationships. The continuous development of this

partnership requires the deepening of friendly relationships between producers and

consumers. This will be achieved only through maximizing contact between the partners.

6. Principle of self-distribution. On this principle, the transportation of produce should

be carried out by either the producer's or consumer's groups, up to the latter's depots,

without dependence on professional transporters.

7. Principle of democratic management. Both groups should avoid over-reliance upon

limited number of leaders in their activities, and try to practice democratic management

with responsibility shared by all. The particular conditions of the members' families

should be taken into consideration on the principle of mutual assistance.

8. Principle of learning among each group. Both groups of producers and consumers

should attach much importance to studying among themselves, and should try to keep

their activities from ending only in the distribution of safe foods.

9. Principle of maintaining the appropriate group scale. The full practice of the matters

written in the above articles will be difficult if the membership or the territory of these

groups becomes too large. That is the reason why both of them should be kept to an

appropriate size. The development of this movement in terms of membership should be

promoted through increasing the number of groups and the collaboration among them.

10. Principle of steady development. In most cases, neither producers nor consumers

will be able to enjoy such good conditions as mentioned above from the very beginning.

Therefore, it is necessary for both of them to choose promising partners, even if their

present situation is unsatisfactory, and to go ahead with the effort to advance in mutual

cooperation.

JAPAN ORGANlC AGRICULTURE ASSOCIATION 1978

7

The focus of the training

The most common direct selling methods are the farmers' markets and direct

selling on the farm (see visual schemes below). These are not the explicit focus of this training material, but these widespread logistical structures are in

many ways a reference point, informing the logistical solutions in other types of models and networks.

During this training, the focus will be primarily on regional food supply chains, Food Cooperatives, Consumers Coops and Producers Coops, but Community

Supported Agriculture will also be shortly described. However, more detailed presentations about CSA may be found in another Grundtvig exchange - based

guideline document, the European Handbook on CSA (http://urgenci.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CSA4EUrope_Handbook.pdf) as well as on Soil

Association's website.

Throughout this document, you will see visualizations of different distribution

arrangements from which to draw inspiration and ideas.

Figure 1

Legend used throughout

the document for marketing schemes and examples of farmers'

markets and direct selling

on the farm.

8

MODULE 1: HOW TO AGREE ON CORE VALUES, HOW TO BUILD A

COMMON VISION

Building-block 1: Collectively identifying the basis and objectives of the project

Building an alternative food system is a collective adventure, where various

actors each have their own role to play. The starting phase is a key period where any opportunity to build a common understanding should be seized. A

significant amount of time should be devoted to agree on key objectives, from

which common rules will be derived.

It is necessary to commonly work out the fundaments of the project. The project team should: -analyze the project's context both in social, economic,

agricultural and geographical terms; -point out a shared vision, make all members aware of it, work out core

guiding principles; -the issue the project participants want to address together, for example

through a mission statement in five sentences; -the general or strategic objectives: what to achieve;

-the operational dimension: how to achieve these objectives; -the indicators: when do you want to achieve them, how to measure your

achievements.

Below is an example of a list of common objectives set by the AlterConso Food

cooperative, in Lyon, France. Figure 2 AlterConso

Objectives.

9

Building-block 2: Defining the ideal system and identifying its participants

Having established the objectives (Building-block 1), we can then think about what kind of system we want to build and who its participants will be. Here are

two examples for assessing the profile of your AFDS actors and coming up with commitments from all the different stakeholders.

The first example provided above by AlterConso is looked at deeper here, with

the following mapping of the project participants, their motivations and

commitments in the project:

Figure 3

AlterConso Participant Motivations and commitment.

Figure 4

AlterConso Cooperative composition.

10

The following scheme has been used during a workshop for the Grundtvig project in

Leuven (Belgium) in April 2014. Wim, from Voedselteams, explains: “the purpose of this scheme was to foster discussion about the possible profiles of members of our on-

line local food platform. For us, it was a key moment to understand the various needs of very different types of customers that should be fulfilled in order to make our tool

easy to use”.

Figure 5

Customer Profiling.

11

Building-block 3: Decision-making, Governance and Organisational set-up

Putting thought into how the project is set up and governed, including procedures for decision-making, helps avoid unnecessary stress down the line.

Things to consider include operational structure, clear and fair distribution of responsibilities and how decisions will be made within the project.

An initiative should not be centered around one or a couple of people; projects

with this characteristic easily become paralyzed if the leaders drop out or are

unable to co-operate with each other.

The Urban Co-operative Farm in Helsinki, with the consumer co-operative (Herttoniemi food co-op) running it, is an example of how this can be achieved

through a fairly complex organization with a clear (if evolving) set of governance principles, some of them stipulated by law.

As Olli, one of the founding members explains, “the co-op is the umbrella organization. People can be members of the co-op and thus the CSA, or just

the food buying club, which has a separate yearly membership fee, or both. Co-op members have voting rights in the Annual General Meeting and

other official meetings. Larger decisions such as approving the yearly budget and share fee, as well as any changes to the co-op rules are decided during

these meetings. The administrative side of the co-op is managed on a voluntary basis, except for accounting which is handled by an outside

professional. The co-op selects a board of members every year to oversee the

running of the co-op, make operative decisions, and prepare the annual project plan and budget for approval by co-op members.”

An organization should be sensitive to the different possibilities and capabilities

of its members. The strength of such groups is that there is a variety of skills that can be harnessed for achieving the common goals. As an example see

AlterConso well-thought-through system of voting rights for the different types of cooperative members during the General Assemblies.

Building-block 4: Search the right legal status

This is a very important aspect that is sometimes neglected. Veikko Heintz in his

book about Solidarische Landwirtschaft, the German name for Community Supported Agriculture (http://www.solidarische-

landwirtschaft.org/de/mediathek/literatur/) outlines legal models for CSAs in Germany. There is a wide variety of opportunities and consequences (including

chances!) that different types of formal and informal arrangements imply.

For example, a crucial aspect is to understand the tax system your operation is subject to. Some AFDS fall in the category of direct selling, with the

consequence that farmers only are responsible for all tax related issues. This is the case in the Finnish REKO or the French AMAP systems. The latter are

considered as associations supporting direct selling. Yet, as soon as your project

12

implies an intermediary and cash flow, it falls into a different category. It

becomes a retailing operation and is subject to a different tax regime.

Addressing this question might involve a legal expert and/or other institutions

with previous experience. This space cannot give specific information but can only highlight that it is worth

reflecting. This is also a field for future research and consultation.

There is a variety of different legal status options as you can see in the table below:

CHART 1 : LEGAL STATUS OF SOME INITIATIVES VISITED DURING THE PROJECT

Initiative Country Website Date

of data

Founded in Legal Status

Voedselteams Belgium www.voedselteams.be May 15

1996 VZW (Vereniging

zonder winst = non profit organisation)

Alter Conso France www.alter-conso.org May 15

2005

SCIC (societé cooperative d'interet collectif = non profit

cooperative)

Arbralégumes France www.arbralegumes.net May 15

Association loi 1901

(non profit association)

Les Paniers Marseillais

France www.lespaniersmarseillais.org May 15

September 2011

Association loi 1901 (non profit association)

Lebensgarten Dreisamtal

Germany http://lebensgarten-dreisamtal.de/ Jun-15

2012 Non profit association

Solawi Kassel Germany www.solawi-kassel.org May 2015

2010 none yet, just contracts between producers and

consumers

13

GartenCoop Germany http://www.gartencoop.org/tunsel/ Jun 15

2009 (farming begun in

2011)

association for the member, society with

limited liability (farming buisness), shareholder (non

registered association)

REKO Finland groups on facebook May 15

2013 no actual organisation

existing

The Urban Co-operative

Farm Finland ruokaosuuskunta.fi

15/ Jun

2011 Co-operative

As a more detailed example, see the legal status of the French CSA

Arbralégumes, below.

Arbralégumes is a non-profit association according to the French law of July 1st 1901. This document includes the internal rules of the association as well as

the role of each administrator.

In 2015, 11 members composed the Board of directors of the association

Arbralegumes: 4 producers, 1 employee and 6 consumers. Various working committees have been created and a restraint board is composed by one

representative for producers, one representative for consumer and one representative for the staff.

14

Figure 6

Legal status of Abralégumes/France.

15

Figure 7 Arbralégumes Model in Lyon.

Figure 8

Les Paniers Marseillais, in Marseille, France.

16

Another French example is the Pama (abbreviation for Paniers marseillais,

« Baskets from Marseille »), an association created in 2007. Pama's role is to

put in contact producers and consumers of Marseille, according to the basic concept of AMAP (Association pour le maintien d'une Agriculture paysanne, a

contract -based direct selling system that is the most widespread CSA model in France). All the PAMA network farms are organic certified.PAMA creates,

organizes and oversees the affiliated groups or Neighborhood Shares (PdQ for ”Paniers de Quartier”). Every Neighborhood Share is a self-managed

association, which should comply with the PAMA Charter requirements. Every single Neighborhood Share has its own farmer, who comes on a regular basis

(every week for a vegetables grower) to bring his harvest of the day; every Neighborhood Share can also establish contracts for bread, eggs or fruits…

The PAMA is ran by a Board of Directors (Council of Administrators, CA), the members of which are elected every year during the General Assembly (GA)).

The “CA” elects a board in charge of implementing the decisions collectively taken during the “GA”. The Board is composed of two co-presidents: a

producer and a consumer, two treasurers, two secretaries. The PAMA has a full

time staff.

All the members of the Board (except the staff) are 100% volunteers.

At the moment, the PAMA network is made up of thirty “PdQ”, which are equally spread everywhere in the city. This represents a total of 1,500 families,

or approximately 5,000 consumers. Among these 30 “PdQ”, four are students' groups and three are located in popular areas.

The PAMA are in contact with charities which are prepared to uptake the left-overs and to cook them for the homeless.

Building-block 5 : Reflecting on efficiency

Reflecting on Efficiency

Efficiency is one of the most frequently used concepts of our time. The interesting thing is that this term is used by people with a very different background – ecologists

on the one side, business strategists, on the other side.

17

Efficiency: Where market capitalism and green movement meet

Many in the green movement have highlighted resource efficiency as a way to fight

e.g. Climate Change. Market capitalism also uses efficiency as one of their paradigms, mainly to refer to competitive advantages. Why does this happen?

TerminologyThe word efficiency is often used in an unthoughtful way. The first point in this respect is the mix-up with the word effectiveness. There is the saying

“Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the right things” and indeed: There is fundamental difference in the meaning of the 2 words:

The efficiency of a system means the ratio between the work or energy got out of it and the work or energy put into it. E.g., the more energy we get out per unit amount

we put in, the more efficient the system is. Efficiency is dimensionless without any goal attachment. However, the term is now largely seen as an economic term weighing

the cost/benefit ratio.

Effectiveness is linked to a goal. Effectiveness is the capability of producing a desired

result. When something is deemed effective, it means it has an intended or expected outcome.

A typical example to show the difference: In order to stop a fire, water or champagne can be used. Both are effective. Using Champagne is more cost intensive and thus not

efficient. If there is no other measure available to stop the fire it might be the most efficient, if the benefit is higher than the cost. Already here we see the fixation on cost. But let’s first continue with the etymological differentiation.

Looking at the definitions, we have to highlight that efficiency cannot be a goal in itself

but has to be put in a context. In this respect, it seems relevant to link it with the term effectiveness. Then it will be coupled with values, even morals and norms. Essential when we deal with the use of the word in the context of food supply/food

systems.

This leads us to another mix-up/misunderstanding when we look at the difference between efficiency and productivity: Productivity means the amount produced per unit area of land or per person employed. Efficiency will look at what energy goes into the

production of food in relation to its yield. This argument is frequently cited when discussing the benefits of industrial agriculture.

Many will argue for the efficiency of industrial agriculture as opposed to organic agriculture or other forms of extensive agriculture or nomad / hunter gatherer

lifestyles by saying that the cost ratio is much more favorable, that more is produced in smaller spaces (as space costs money). But if the parameter is changed to energy

we can get completely different results as has been listed in an article here (http://veganorganic.net/2012/06/what-is-efficient-agriculture/). From this perspective, the energy going into extensive agriculture or even food gathering proves

to be much more favorable than the energy-intensive industrial agriculture.

Efficiency does not equal less use of resource

Apart from the terminology, there are more issues with efficiency. We can thus

question if the obsession with this term is justified.

The Rebound effect refers to the behavioral or other systemic responses to the

introduction of new technologies that increase the efficiency of resource use. These responses tend to offset the beneficial effects of the new technology or other

18

measures taken. The "Khazzoom-Brookes postulate" describes the idea that energy efficiency gains paradoxically result in increases in energy use. Gains made have partly or fully been offset by changes in the consumption mix and especially overall

consumption growth. An example: Despite advances in CO2 offset efficiency (e.g. lightbulb) the average private consumption expenditure per person rose by 33 % in

the EU-27 between 1990 and 2010, with the greatest growth, 77 %, in the 12 countries that have joined the EU since 2004.

Efficiency and regional food systemsWhen dealing with the issue of Regional food systems, the issue of efficiency rises immediately. And at first sight the current logistic

systems have created cheap ways to feed oneself globally. You can easily eat and access cheap (and previously unknown) food from all over the world; even food that grows also locally can be bought at a lower price even if it comes from the other side

of the world. But the parameters are wrong: the hidden economic, ecologic and social costs (externalities) are not in the price tag.

People involved in local food systems have often chosen to make their own arrangements and create new structures. But when looking at the challenges to

establish logistic solutions for more sustainable, regional food systems, the question of efficiency will pop up. This is why the term efficiency, the link to effectiveness and also

the time dimension all need to be discussed: we should distinguish between long term efficiency and short term efficiency.

If the aim of a more local, sustainable food system is to maintain peasant agriculture, healthy local ecosystems and landscape, an adequate logistic system should

accompany this, and should address the following issues: How can we feed ourselves without losing the proximity between producers and “prosumers”? How can we establish an (uncomplicated) and comprehensive short food supply chain that is not

resource-, energy- and transport-intensive?

This means we should look at effectiveness first rather than efficiency. This means placing values first. After all, the alternative food system is value-driven instead of limiting the focus to mere financial profit. According to these values and aims, we can

design the food system along the parameters. The effectiveness will look at how we have managed to achieve these goals, e.g. through sustainability indicators. Then we

can look at the efficiency of measures based on input/output.

19

Two CSA initiatives from Freiburg, Germany

Figure 9

GartenCoop Freiburg

Figure 10

Lebensgarten Dreisamtal

20

MODULE 2: BALANCING OFFER AND DEMAND

Building Block 6: Defining and understanding the potential of the area

A key element for every aspect of logistics of short supply chains is to find the

right scale. The territory for which the local food system will operate has to be defined thoughtfully.

Distance and scope can be crucial issues for AFDS, for instance the question of

the perimeter of a given region or what we mean when we use the word local. There is no rule how small or large an area is, to be considered suitable. A look

into the local history (even the recent one, up to 50 years ago) can provide answers: where were the path for the older trade routes? What were the

different areas of production? In many cases, administrative boundaries are not the most appropriate, sometimes leading to constructing initiatives that are

overtly large.

Fo example, London Food Strategy has included all South-East England regions

as part of the territory on which local food systems the capital city should be designed. Similarly, an initiative led in the West of France (The municipality of

Alençon), focusing on building a logistical transportation, conditioning, processing and packaging platform for small farmers, was substantially

enlarged. Initially thought for a single urban and periurban area of around 100,000 inhabitants, its action area was finally extended to 2 whole counties

(Orne and Sarthe departments), making up a territory of 500,000 inhabitants.

An analysis of the context and potential of a specific region is an important issue when starting an AFDS. The area in which you want to operate might be

an area with clearly determined agricultural use (like a wine growing area) without much chance for vegetable growing (e.g. soil related).

Besides the natural geography, the human geography of shaping spaces into a cultural landscape has to be considered. This includes for example the urban

and demographic density. Is the area rural or urban? How large is the urban area and how is it structured (compact or sprawling)? Do we observe large

concentrated ownership? It can also be just suitable for a new project or there might even be demand from old producers to keep the farm land in good

hands.

Historically, the first reference in zoning the source of food was Von Thünen’s theory on concentric circles of food production around urban dwellings, in the

eighteenth century. Today, for example, the Food Zone Diagram developed by Growing Communities (see below) is a way to approach the geographical

dimensions of food systems at a regional scale. It may enable you to position your project in a given context.

21

Figure 11

The Food Zone Diagram Growing communities

Figure 12

Foodshed concept

22

The concept of foodshed refers to the geographic region that produces food for

a particular population. Research has shown that sustainability is most often

approached by each of us in immediate spatial, temporal and social proximity. This is because our human perception is generally subjective and limited and

our experience and understanding of processes is of low complexity. This means that responsible consumption is more likely when we can relate to the

consequences of production; especially through geographic proximity. This impacts not only the manageable size of the social environment but also

relates to the design of an AFDS.

Slaughtering House Pietarsaari/Jakobstad Marten, one of the founding members of the shareholding company that sat up

the slaughtering house, explains the history of this project:

“The idea for building our own slaughterhouse came from a group of about 15 herders, all friends. We were unsatisfied about the relationship with the large-scale slaughterhouses and felt there should be an infrastructure more fit for

small farmers, easy to use and less costly. So basically we sat around a coffee and started to plan something. We investigated the local farmers' need for a

small scale slaughtering house and identified about 60 farms which could have a regular use of such a place. We were lucky that at the same moment, a local

direct selling system, called REKO, emerged. Almost all the farmers using our structure are selling through REKO because it makes it much easier for them to

reach the consumers. For REKO, it was also a huge boost since the offer in

local meat production was multiplied, up to a third of Jakobstad’s REKO total turnover”.

As a summary and check list, here are the key data to collect and analyse: 1/ Distances on the territory, between production sites and consumption

centers; 2/ Coverage of existing alternative food systems;

3/ Agricultural structure: proportion of agricultural land, of organic farms, variety of selling systems (direct selling at the farm, Ethical purchase

groups, other types of AFDS); 4/ Existing associative networks, especially food oriented associations.

23

Building-block 7: What is the eaters demand? Who are the eaters?

First of all, it is important to note that AFDS is not about artificially creating demand, but about feeding people in a local way that is fair to all participants

and has high social and environmental standards. When starting an AFDS initiative, it is important to see what is already there and then to coordinate

the efforts. In most places there is more than enough space for the creation of new initiatives – and it is logical to expect that a good example will trigger-off

more interest.

The GartenCoop founding members underline the need for thorough

preparation, especially to connect to potential member groups. In their own case, a two-year-long process consisting of regular events (planning meetings,

project building, awareness raising and land searching) was necessary.

In Finland, the Urban Co-operative Farm in Helsinki received a lot of interest from prospective members as soon as some tentative plans were made and

the co-op was up and running within a few months.

”It seems that the co-op was started at a good time. There was pent-up demand for something like this. People were waking up to questions about

’good food’ and interested in knowing where their food comes from. There was also a lot of interest in food growing, but in an urban setting, people struggled

to find spaces for gardening on any real scale and allotments were hard to

come by. Recruiting the initial group of members was quick and was aided by suitable mailing lists and social media, as well as the visibility the project

gained in traditional media because of its novelty. Now that the co-op is running, we keep advertising through social media and with posters and flyers

whenever we need more members, and also get new members with the help of recommendations from our existing members.” –Sini Forssell, co-op member.

It is crucial to think about the appropriate number of consumer participants in any given project. This will depend on the type of project. For example, a

closely-knit CSA-type arrangement will be limited in the number of participants, depending on the growing space available but also for the group

to be small enough to allow in-depth relationships and to feel like a community. Several dozens members is probably approaching the upper limit.

A looser network involving many farmers and many locations will be able to

have many more people involved.

24

Dairy Farms

De Zwaluw Clincke Het Eikenhof Hoevezuivel 't Veldeken

keymeulen De Schapen

melkerij

Week levering op

vrijdag Bio zuivel Harde kazen Geiten zuivel zuivel zuivel schapenzuivel

1

02-jan-15NONONON

ONONO

2

09-jan-15YESYESY

ES YES YES YES

3 16-jan-15 YES YES YES YES YES YES

4 23-jan-15 YES YES YES YES YES YES

5 30-jan-15 YES YES YES YES YES YES

6 06-feb-15 YES YES YES YES YES YES

7 13-feb-15 YES YES YES YES YES YES

8

20-feb-15YESYESYE

SYES NOYES

9 27-feb-15 YES YES YES YES YES YES

Figure 13 Belgium example: Voedelteams availability calendar “leveringskalender Oost-

Vlaanderen Noord 2015” (left : weeks and dates; above : name of the farms).

Figure 14 Availability Calendar provided by Arbralégumes, Lyon, France.

25

Building-block 8: Projecting Production and Harvests, setting up an availability calendar

Production and harvests should be projected well beforehand. At an early stage, a part of the consumers' core group, called for example the Farm Team,

should cooperate closely with the farmer. The farmer will in any case have to plan his production, including variety, seasonality, time input by him and

others, cost and production output in kg.

If the group is interested to set up a CSA that uses active help of the members on the field it makes sense to design a work plan based on the farmers

estimates. This could be done by creating an availability calenda

r, based on the basic seasonal calendar (available in each country).

This calendar is created by the growers and eaters together at the end of the

year:

● The producer(s) list(s) the crops they can produce and the months each should be available (e.g. in half months i.e. early June and late June).

● The consumers then say how much of each crop they would estimate buying per week.

● The producers then base their planting schedules on this - negotiating/co-ordinating between them who will grow what (if two

producers grow the same crop and there is not enough demand).Ideally, the growers should also give the estimated price that those crops will

have with seasonal variations - so that eaters can estimate their demand knowing the price.

Some tools for harvesting plans in small-scale organic farms are already

available. Santa Cruz University developed a formula based on the soil type, climate, etc.:

http://casfs.ucsc.edu/education/

http://casfs.ucsc.edu/about/publications/Teaching-Direct-Marketing/index.html

http://code.google.com/p/cropplanning/ (Crop planning software)

Shared equipment/tools/machinery - management and maintenance

Some projects have included the development of procedures to manage tool or equipment sharing. Thanks to these rules, one can easily track who has

borrowed what (logging it out and in), how the equipment is stored and maintained, what happens if it needs repairing, whose responsibility is it, how

maintenance and repairs and replacement are paid for. These are key questions in any project with shared infrastructure.

26

The Tajma slaughtering house in Pedersöre, Finland, sheds a light on the

strategic dimension of equipment sharing:

“From the beginning, it was clear that the crucial point was to keep such a tool into farmers' hands. So we decided to rely as much as possible on our own investments, with a complement from loans contracted with a social bank

based in Denmark and with a national agency. Moreover, these loans were reimbursed quickly after the slaughterhouse started functioning. We sat up the

slaughterhouse as a shareholding, with 19 holders, including one professional slaughterer (who has an experience from big slaughtering companies) and 18

farmers. We put it as a rule, that no one could buy a share if she wouldn't have a regular use of the slaughterhouse.”

Building-block 9: Cost/Price-Building

The wide variety of models that fall under the category of AFDS will have a

different take on this issue. The most notable difference is between some CSA models and other regional, sustainable food systems. Some CSA systems

operate outside the market. Therefore the focus should not be on the price as such but rather the yearly cost that will be divided amongst the members. In

this case, the process how to determine the right price is usually undertaken by a negotiating process between the gardeners/farmers and the CSA

members where the envisaged costs are listed and matched with the capacities of the members (financial, work time etc).

If price building is required, the orientation to the market is helpful but not the determining factor. As these AFDS are driven by high socio-ecologic values, the

eaters are willing to pay a fair price.

Price Building should be a Transparent Process…

Who decides the price?

3 options: ● 1-Producers and consumers negotiate the price;

● 2-The producer decides the price, based on the costs of production. If relevant, the costs for cooperative way of functioning (distribution etc.)

could be added on top; ● 3-The producer/co-ordinator proposes the price and the co-op/group

agrees on it;

Principles of Price-building from the association French Arbralégumes

(Lyon area)

Principle 1: The price has to be remunerative for the producer and affordable for the consumer;

Principle 2: The producers of a similar group (gardener, fruit farmer, cheese marker,..) have to talk together about the price to stay at the same level;

27

Principle 3: The price should be flexible because of the climate or difficulties

of production;

Principle 4: Each price modification has to be explained and debated during the biannual meeting of producers. If the price increase is too steep, the

agreement of the board of administrators should be sought.

Example of the Solawi Kassel (Solidarische Landwirtschaft Kassel) in Germany

“Our leading principle is that price building is not only about the value of the

products, but also a social issue and a challenge”, explains Sara, one of the Solawi Kassel's coordinators. “The Solawi Kassel (Solawi is the abbreviation of

Solidarische Landwirtschaft, which means solidary based farming) decides the prices of a share in a yearly bidding round with all participants. After the

budget for the year is presented, everybody knows the average price for a share. Every eater decides then what he wants to pay. It can be exactly the

average or beneath or above it, the thing that matters is that all together we

cover the budget. If it does not fit, another bidding round is done directly (who can pay a little bit more?)”.

Having a formula like this helps the growers to calculate prices that are fair to

them, but is also decisive regarding transparency, as it shows precisely consumers how the price is built.

Other “How much do you pay?” formulas

● ‘Shares’ are paid based on working out the overall production costs for the year, equally divided between all the buyers (pure CSA model);

● Buyers pay per basket/box/bag; ● Pay per product, an amount per kg.

Different pricing structures:

● No limit - buyers decide themselves how much they can afford to pay

● Sliding scheme – there a several prices for the same product or the same share, according, for example, to the buyers' declared income

● Fixed price

How much produce do you get for the payment: ● A set amount

● Take what you need

Building-block 10: Breaking Even, Looking for Financial Stability

Making loss is undesirable, no matter what kind of model is at stake. In order to avoid financial turbulence, the experience of other groups can surely help –

it is nonetheless clear that the lessons of your own experience will be the best teacher. Thorough preparation and planning will surely help. This is true

especially to the following fields:

28

Determining the right legal status for the organization's financial

requirements;

Allocation of clear responsibilities; Management of how the money is transferred and the payment works

(yearly/monthly/biannual payment, ..); Determining how the buyer will pay (cheques, bank transaction, cash,

..);

Determining how the grower will be paid;

Determining if all costs are covered: Many factors that don't come to mind have to be included in the budget, e.g. insurance policies need to

be checked and calculated in the budget.

Here is an example of a business plan from a French initiative.

An IT solution for the accountancy can really help. Getting the finances right

and making sure that people get paid is crucial for a smooth functioning of the

organisation. Make sure to find a way to keep track of and manage who has

paid and when. This might imply to use the services of an accountant and a

tax advisor. In Belgium and France, each group has a volunteer responsible specifically for the management of payments.

Within the AMAP/CSA movement in France, the consumers write cheques out

for each monthly payment (for 6-12 months in advance) and give them to the producers. The producers do not cash the cheques until the dates the

payments are due.

As a conclusion, financial systems are best kept simple and appropriate to the group size and concept.

29

MODULE 3: LOGISTICS

Building-block 11: Distribution/Nodes/Intermediaries and Storage/Cooling Hub

Distribution (transport of products from producer to consumer) is a high cost for an AFDS. We should be careful about developing more efficient distribution

systems - simple and low cost, both financially and environmentally.

Distribution models can be roughly divided into three types:

a) Directly from the farm to the consumer

Home delivery: producer delivers direct to house;

Distribution at a collective delivery point where members pick up their

share;

Farmers’ market

; The eaters’ group or an intermediary service takes charge of picking up

from the farm and to deliver to the eaters

b) Farm-depot-eaters (for example a public or community space, or a rented storage unit)

producer delivers to the depot and the consumers come to the depot to pick up food

producer first delivers to the depot, after which the co-op staff deliver to

households or to groups; the co-op staff pick up from the farm, take to the depot for packing and

deliver to households or groups. This is the model implemented by AlterConso, a 700 members -scheme operated in Lyon, France.

c) Pick up at the farm

Figure 15 Local farm shop on wheels model,

Horben near Freiburg, Germany.

30

Figure 16 Classic Food coop model, Freiburg, Germany.

Figure 17 Distribution model of the GASAP Brussels.

31

The role of intermediaries

The idea of having intermediaries in the food system is often met with some

suspicion. In the mainstream food system, the transformation and retail sector have higher profit gains than producers. For example, in Germany, the

agricultural production has a 0,8% share of the Gross Domestic Product despite working on 52% of the country’s land, while the food processing sector

has a turnover three times higher, amounting to 163 billion (2011). In many instances throughout Europe, farmers have been under pressure from

intermediaries including retailers and even milk cooperatives. The agrifood businesses' margin is increasing while the price paid to the producer is, at

best, stagnating, or simply collapsing as in the milk industry.

A major benefit of AFDS is often seen to be that they leave out intermediaries, resulting in lower consumer prices and an appropriate wage for the producers.

However, small intermediaries like local food shops or processors are not part

of the problem. Instead, they can be an important part of the solution. This is true for the local food transformation through slaughtering houses, butchers,

bakers, brewers and food dryers. Small artisan transporters, wholesalers or specialised retailers can also play a role in helping with marketing and letting

the producers focus on production.

Each intermediary step has a cost. This cost depends on the number of employees (or volunteers) required, the price and use of energy to transport

and control temperature and the outlet rent.

Partnership models can be of great importance in order to use synergies and share costs.

AFDS can take advantage of being a short chain. They are generally not under

the same pressure as conventional large scale logistics to transport food over

long distance and time. However, even short-chain logistics are not free from time constraints. Farmers usually have the means and their ways of storing

their produce. To store at the farm and then transport food directly to the eaters or the collection points would be the most straightforward solution. It

also spares any intermediary cost. The question of organization and costs arises if, apart from storage facilities in the production space, further storage is

required for distribution, for example in a city center.

In some cases, there might be a need for producers to have a centralized storage and/or distribution place in a town, where a diverse range of products

can be brought and sorted into smaller quantities, to then be distributed to many points (CSA or others).

Spanish short food supply chains, operated by various ecological organizations,

are examples of where this system has been tried. In Madrid and Barcelona,

producers have tried renting a place in the large-scale logistical centers for

32

food in the town (Merca Madrid or MercaBarna). From there, CSA networks

pick up the products and distribute them to the different CSA or food coops in the city with their own collective delivery systems, once a week. In other

towns, like Segovia, producers and consumers have jointly rented a place on the peripheries of the town, where all the different city CSAs gather weekly for

product distribution.

Building-block 12: Synergies and collaboration

AFDS rely on cooperation rather than competition. This differs from conventional market logic, where one tries to conquer markets and challenge

competitors. Instead, trying to find other people who have similar approaches or similar ideas, and practicing solidarity with other projects is seen as a more

constructive approach in AFDS. Screening existing projects or ideas should thus be one of the first steps for anybody looking to create an AFDS.

There are plenty of benefits from this approach. Building synergies with similar

projects is a way to save time and money, for example through shared infrastructure or transportation. In Lyon, four initiatives are sharing a logistical

hub called La Bruyère, thus saving money on the rent and sharing energy costs.

Some interesting synergies have been found. An original example is a new

delivery point now in use at the Urban Co-operative Farm CSA in Helsinki: a

branch of the public library in Helsinki that was seeing a decline in readers. The CSA secured a distribution space and the library reported a rise in users and

books loaned out along with the new stream of people coming in through their doors. Another example is provided by the Carla Cargo project in Freiburg,

Germany. A group of engineers designing bicycle trailers for food transportation developed solutions for local food initiatives in their area1.

Economies of scale are one positive outcome of working together, but there are

other indirect benefits as well. One is the increased visibility for your projects. An example is the Harvest Week in September 2014 in Lyon, where more than

10 structures organized a series of different events during 2 weeks, with a joint campaign approach. Another important benefit is know-how and

experience sharing. This is useful in the beginning of the project but also on an on-going basis, with continued creative exchange of knowledge.

AFDS might also consider synergies with the public and third sector, as they often have similar objectives.

Finally, even if there are no other existing initiatives in the area to build

synergies with, one can always learn from existing projects elsewhere. We

1 http://www.carlacargo.de/

33

cannot always simply "copy-paste" what others have done, yet we can get

inspiration from them.

Sara, from the Solawi Kassel2, a German CSA, tells about her own experience

in building synergies: “By personal contacts and by the Solawi Netzwerk (german CSA network), the Solawi Kassel is connected to other CSAs. We

order pot ground together, swap seedlings and share experiences (helping new initiatives to start a CSA). Twice a year, a national CSA meeting is organized

by people from the network. Taking part in these meetings makes me realize that we a part of a movement, the personal contacts provide a lot of energy to

go on.”

Building-block 13: Sharing Group management tasks among stakeholders

The simple projects simply consists of farmers and eaters. Yet, in most AFDS, a

broader group of participants is involved.

Giving specific roles to the stakeholders can provide advantages for the

participants, such as freeing up more time to work on the field for the farmer if someone else is involved in the delivery or groups' coordination, for example.

Professionalization can make the system more sustainable and viable. Capacity -building efforts in accounting, determining a fair price or pooling tools to

better organize logistics can be highly beneficial. A wide range of roles and skills exist in an AFDS: logistics, accounting, management, administration,

relations with local authorities, member recruitment, governance, campaigning

etc.

The point about synergies in the preceding section should also be kept in mind: networking with partners in order to create synergies by pooling know-how

might easily help remove obstacles.

Building-block 14: Managing stocks and orders

The need for administration tools is direct linked to the level of complexity of

the partnership. The less direct the exchanges are, the greater the need for various administration tools.

A direct sale at the farm such as some pick-your-own vegetables farms, can be

considered fully trust based. It just needs a box where people can put cheques or cash. The perception of trust -based direct marketing varies according to the

cultural context. In the Freiburg region there is longstanding experience of such a modus operandi and no significant problems of free riding has ever

been observed.

2 Solawi stands for Solidarische Landwirtschaft, Solidarity –based Agriculture, one of the German CSA models.

34

The next step into complexity requires some basic tools like lists or

spreadsheets tracking customer names and orders. The REKO network in

Finland has been using Facebook as a platform for placing orders, thus turning the conversation stream into a database of orders sent to the producer.

Delivering a more complex order, such as a mix of vegetables, fruits, dairy

products and grocery, from different farms to different places, will need more sophisticated tools. Online ordering platforms might be necessary in that case

in order to keep track of what has been paid and ensure everyone gets what was ordered.

These tools should be user-friendly and suitable for the specific needs and

ways of the system.

Stock Management

It is important to know the day-to-day availability of each product, in what quantity, as well as to be able to track how much the stock decreases as each

buyer places their order.

a) Different stock management models: Fresh Share for all: the farmers bring

what they have each week and each consumer takes a similar share; Constant Weekly Share: the farmer has to bring the same volume every week, so the

producer needs a large storing capacity to ensure she has something available year round;

● For irregular productions, like meat (there has to be enough orders to slaughter an animal), online ordering systems should probably be used

to manage stocks.

b) Winter storage: In case consumers have the responsibility to store, workshops can be provided for consumers to be trained into preserving

methods - pickling, drying, chutney etc. or traditional ‘hole in the ground’ storage);In case producers have the responsibility to store crops (to make

them last throughout the year) – trainings can be offered to producers about

effective good storage methods;

● If it is the producer’s responsibility, there should be awareness that

storing is costly, and that these costs should be included in the price.

c) Dealing with production surpluses:

● Collective responsibility: the surpluses are brought to the pick-up point and shared at the end of the distribution with volunteers and late-

comers, on a random base; Individual consumer responsibility: the surpluses are equally shared among consumers. Each consumer takes all

the produce and learns how to store it (individual consumer responsibility);

● Involve/sell to processors.

d) Managing left-overs at the distribution point:

35

Left overs are shared between the distribution volunteers (volunteers

help to do the sorting/packing).

Left over produce (not collected) is given away (for example to community projects, food banks, social organizations... etc...)

. For example, Monique explains that “the PAMA in Marseille are in contact with

charities organization whose members come and take the left-over vegetable baskets to cook these vegetables for the homeless people.”

e) Online ordering systems are being developed for Producers' Co-ops and

restaurants. Here are the functionalities available in Voedselteams' webshop backoffice:The producers or a co-ordinator can update the website at any time

to show the produce and volume available at the time of order in order to avoid overbooking;

● Restaurants also can place orders; The orders are collected automatically. The total per producer is sent to each producer as well as

to the co-ordinator;The invoices are automatically generated;

● Payments (from restaurants, and to producers) can easily be tracked and managed.

Currently, orders are placed by Friday noon, producers harvest exact amount

ordered on Sunday and deliver it to the depot, co-op coordinator delivers orders on Monday morning.

Figure 18 Voedselteam webshop.

36

Building-block 15: Transport Means and Materials

The geographical context will determine the best way of carrying food from the farm to the consumer. Congested urban areas come with their own challenges

and make it all the more necessary to be creative about efficient transport.

The “last kilometer dilemma” is a tough one to solve in logistics and if we are interested in reducing the environmental impacts of logistics we need to

consider the entire journey of the product from the farm to the consumer’s

kitchen, including how the consumer herself transports the products home from the distribution point – can she arrive at the distribution point by foot, by

bicycle or public transport rather than car?

Some basic rules might be to minimize individual trips by car, consider ways of combining transportation of foods from different farms and consider switching

the means of transport along the way. For example, bringing products from the farm to a depot and then from there using cargo bikes to distribution points, as

Gartencoop, in Freiburg, does. These solutions require a certain level of commitment from members to ensure that someone will indeed hop on the

bicycle on each delivery day. Nevertheless, considering climate unfriendly emissions, costs and the fact that in urban areas the time required by different

means of transport tends to even out (car/van 20 km/hr, bicycle 14 km/hr, walking 4 km/hr), it makes sense to seriously consider zero-emission options.

It is important to invest in the proper materials for logistics, in order to ensure comfortable and safe working. Using stackable, durable plastic crates, for

example, is a little bit more expensive, but will prevent stressful situations such as a flimsy wooden box breaking down under the weight of everything

else.

Building-block 16: All what you want to avoid: Waste, Emissions and Foodprint

Using more ecological transport should be a key point of AFDS.

Samuel, from AlterConso, Lyon informs that “in 2010, a study showed how efficient was the delivery system at AlterConso, by just using a single van and

improving the way to fill it up every day. The same study also demonstrated that the final eaters were actually the ones spending the most energy in our

system, since some were still using a car to pick their products up. AlterConso

has 14 delivery points in town, and almost all of them are reachable by bike or common transports. In comparison to AlterConso, a large commercial mall,

where every one comes by car to buy products, is a much more energy consuming food system“.

37

Building-block 17: Choosing the structure - AFDS Tour

There are a lot of factors that influence the way an AFDS should be set up.

Let’s explore these factors by taking a tour through these three main stages:

-1° Delivery -2° Managing the orders

-3° Transportation

Delivery

1.1 Where does the delivery take place ?

● A: At the farm, or at a farmers' shop. ● B: At the consumr's home or at the working place, in case of a door-delivery system ● C: At a collective distribution point (private, eg. shop, café, apartment building or

public, eg. library, parking lot), where consumers can pick up their products. ● D: the use of a logistical hub/depot, or even just of a farmers' shop, requires

collective investment (from farmers or both farmers and consumers) in material (shop, storage, cooling/refrigeration), and time (managing, selling...). It enables the organization of the last kilometer delivery for products coming from different

area/farms.

A: At the farm + (pluses, positive aspects): no transport for the farmer ; no risk of exhaustion because of frequent deliveries finishing late at night.

- (minuses, negative aspects): consumers have to organize themselves individually or

collectively for the pick up; higher amount of greenhouse gas emissions compared to deliveries to a central pick up point, accessible by public transport; for the consumers, more time spent driving.

Needed: an easy access to the farm; a wide range of products to reduce the need for

consumers to visit many different locations (this may mean sourcing products from other farms); a smart scheduling of opening times.

B: Door delivery system

+: no time spent in transport for the consumer

-: home delivery is time-consuming; extra time and fuel spent is (and should be) reflected in higher costs for the consumers (ex :

https://www.lescolisbioduvaldeloire.fr)

Needed: suitable vehicle for deliveries, delivery route planning, ensuring the cold chain for those products requiring it. Additionally, the consumer needs to be at home

or provide a safe and sheltered place for food. C: At a distribution point

+ better optimization of time between consumer and farmer ; - may lose link between farmer and consumer if they don’t meet often enough

38

Needed : good organization to connect offer and demand ; extra place to stock and deliver the products.

D: Logistical hub or distribution point +: better optimization of time of delivery and preparation for consumer and farmer ; -: buying or renting involves cost, energy.

Needed: cold room ; storage ; packaging zone ; IT abilities (servers, computers?).

Order Management

In all models but the traditional, direct marketplace, solutions should be found to

manage orders. There are 2 options to manage the orders: either the consumers' groups do it (option

1), or a farmer or third party operator does it (option 2). Of course, in some cases, these two options can be mixed.

Option 1: consumers are in charge of managing the orders. Local groups of consumers organize themselves, place the order according to what

the group needs, collect money for payment and pick up the food (and even deliver it to individual members). There are many examples, like AMAP or the local purchase

groups like La Miecyclette. http://www.lamiecyclette.fr/groupement-dachat/

Option 2: third party operators or farmers are in charge of managing the orders. Farmers or operators (third parties dedicated to facilitating farm logistics) collect the

orders from individual consumers, manage them and organize the delivery, the storage (if needed) and collect the money.

Thanks to various collaborative tools, a farmer himself can also make some proposals regarding the products that are currently available and a group or individual can

respond to this offer. Here is a link to an example with Voedselteams: http://boerenvoedsel.be/webwinkel/voedselwinkel/.

Using social networks, databases (Access, Excel) and other digital tools is a way to stick close to the needs expressed by different actors and to save time and money. An

example is offered by the REKO direct selling circles in Finland, who are using Facebook pages for REKO consumers to directly place orders with farmers.

Another example is the use of different social networking tools by Belgian Voedselteams groups (see link above).

However those tools should not replace the human relationships that are the essence

of AFDS. Here are some functionalities that should be available on an online management

system:

1/ filtering systems: filter the product list, show only bio + gluten free + ... or just from

39

one category of products (dairy products, vegetables, etc.)

or filter per producer; 2/

ordering deadline: “you can place your order until XX.XX. - X pm”. This date can be

defined by each farmer individually; 3/ image-based choice to place the order, and possibility to increase/decrease the units;

4/ possibility to order ahead: each consumer can place orders for the future, there is a possibility for a standing order (the same each week);

5/ Prepayment system: users have a sort of credit system. One reason to have a pre-payment system is because the producers can be paid in advance;6/ Bottle

deposit: deposit for bottles are recalculated with the credit wallet, the system registers when you bring them back;

7/ Favorites list;

8/ History of orders appears chronologically, bills are kept available for checking, even afterwards;

9/ Engagement and opportunities: in Voedselteam's webshop, there is a field for "Engagement & Opportunities", where one can see any possible discount on big orders;

10/ Recipe fuction : in order to cook with the products bought online; 11/ Group function : total commands for a particular group. Helps you to check if

there is enough ordered for the farmer to make the delivery; 12/

"My Team" organisation functions - with direct chat or mail contacts and profiles, as well as the following elements:

- calendar for each team (deliveries, person in charge of the depot or develivery point) and for all the network(special happenings, farm visits, festivals...);

- blog; - Producers are also included in the Team section.

40

Figure 19 Belgium: Voedselteams example.

41

Figure 20 Finland CSA approach from Helsinki : Herttoniemi Food Cooperative.

42

MODULE 4: EFFECTIVE COORDINATION, RELATIONS OF

PROXIMITY AND SENSE OF CO-OWNERSHIP

Building-blocks 18: Internal Communication, Decision-making

Effective logistics in alternative food distribution systems are not simply about the flow of products, but the flow of information should also be considered.

Effective communication strengthens understanding and trust between the parties. What is different about alternative food distribution systems is that

they can allow for more participation into the food network. It is equally vital for producers to communicate about the challenges they encounter in food

production, educating consumers about the realities of food growing.

Communicating within the group By receiving information about where and how their food is grown, consumers

understand better for example issues of seasonality, the challenges of food production and the work involved. This helps in shifting away from a

'supermarket shopper' mentality to a more active role and also tends to

contribute to greater awareness of sustainability issues in the food system.

For example at the Helsinki-based Urban Co-operative Farm, 78% of members responding to an annual member survey felt that co-op membership had made

them more aware of the issues in food production generally. This awareness is actively cultivated in the co-op through working together in the field as well as

through regular blog posts written by the grower.

Communication channels should be established between all network actors: producers, workers/volunteers, consumers, collaborating partners. There are

many channels to be used, for example meetings, email, telephone, leaflets, blog/internet pages, discussion forums and social media. These should be

chosen based on what means of communication people are already engaging with and have easy access to. Magdalena from the Vaasa REKO circle

emphasizes the importance of using a popular social network: “Using Facebook

(FB) has been the key of the success for REKO: everybody is already available there. Moreover, it has made the work for voluntary administrators much

easier. Basically my job as a REKO group organizer has been mostly moderating a simple Facebook group”.

Even if online social networks have been instrumental, they cannot replace

face-to-face communication between all the different actors to build trust -based relationships. To go back to the REKO example, FB is used as a tool but

the motivation is to buy directly from local farmers and spend time with them. Ideally, this should lead producers and consumers to meet at the delivery

point, to hold farm visits or even to work together at the farm or growing site. These helping days or meetings should be easy and attractive – shared

transportation, coffee or picnic lunches all help.

43

Internal communication also links to the issues of decision-making discussed in

Module 1. A more informed consumer or member is likely to be a more active one. The shift from a passive, disempowered consumer of food in the

conventional food system into a more active one, involved in decision-making, is not easy. People may need reminders about the democratic opportunities in

alternative food distribution systems.

Decision-making Fluid internal communication is the key to smooth and shared decision-making.

It would be a mistake to reduce the creativity in terms of decision-making models into a single methodology. The most important is to agree on the key

principles for how you are going to work and make decisions together, then you can let the structure grow organically according to the needs of the group.

Don’t get stuck in structure development for its own sake.

Make sure there is no vacuum of responsibility - who makes the decision and

then who carries out the actions after the decision is taken: Do we need to make a decision?

Who is affected? Do the affected actors want to be involved in making the decision?

Then, make sure the conditions for decision-making are properly set.

1. Choose the way to make decision. In smaller organizations, consensus is common. Instead, larger organizations might sometimes have to rely on

voting to settle potential conflicts; 2. Always make sure somebody is in charge of facilitation (allowing turns of

speech, making sure nobody takes too much time from the collective), timekeeping and wrapping up decisions;

3. To foster reflection, don't hesitate to set up subgroups that are in charge of making proposal to the larger group.

Achieving decisions It is important to make sure that information and decisions made are

documented and these documents stored reliably. Our memory is short and as the actors running an initiative change, valuable information could be lost. It is

useful to have some type of database from the beginning to capture ideas, discussions, minutes from meetings and lessons learned. Over time, these

form a valuable repository of cumulative information and know-how that can support future decision-making and also be shared with newcomers.

Building-blocks 19: External Communication

Another consideration is how to communicate externally. This can be for the purposes of gaining more customers or members, or for gaining external

awareness and support for the scheme among local authorities.

It is a good idea to have information about your scheme on a website, and a blog or newsletter can also be of interest to prospective members or other

external parties.

44

Giving talks, participating at food-related events and so on are a good way of

spreading the message and meeting people face-to-face. The Urban Co-Operative Farm in Helsinki has had success also with selling a share of the

produce to high-profile restaurants where it is mentioned on the menu.

Local or national media may be interested in these new food networks from various different angles – new participatory consumer culture, new economic

models, food culture, urban culture and so on.

Collaboration with the educational sector has been fruitful for the Urban Co-operative Farm CSA in Helsinki. Perho, a culinary school in Helsinki also trains

future chefs and caterers in food provenance and sustainability, and has been a member of the CSA for several years. Students visit and do work in the field,

and cook from CSA farm products. University students have also used the CSA as a case in thesis work, resulting in useful tools such as member surveys.

Building-blocks 20: Building Trust through Alternative Screening Methods

One of the central ideas in short, alternative distribution systems is the trust

and connection between the people involved. This can reduce the need for formal certification and labeling of foods and other forms of technical control of

production methods that are necessary in conventional food supply chains. An added benefit for producers is the opportunity for receiving direct feedback

from consumers.

There are many ways of building this trust: for example, face-to-face meetings between producers and consumers, even farm visits, or more indirect

ways such as messages from the growers in for example leaflets or social

media.

At the Urban Co-operative Farm in Helsinki, the grower hired by the co-op members to grow food for them communicates about the growing methods she

uses via a field blog. Members are also encouraged to participate in field work to learn more about how their food grows. The co-op field does however also

have organic and Demeter certification, as it is thought that this is valued by some co-op members.

For initiatives working with a greater number of outside growers, there may be

more need for more formal criteria and rules. Initiatives are free to discuss and set their own criteria for producers and production, based on what is

particularly valued by the members in that initiative (organic production, vegetarian products, supporting peasant farming, supporting local food

production..) Contracts such as those used by French AMAPs are useful in

making expectations clear between the parties involved. Below is an example for a vegetable growing farm.

45

MODEL OF A FRENCH AMAP (Association pour le maintien de l’Agriculture paysanne, Association for maintaining small-scale sustainable farming)

STANDARD CONTRACT

Natasha Semenka, farmer, Who lives street address, postal code, name of the city Phone number Email address Hereafter referred as “the farmer”, party of the first part and Michal Ceheza, member of the CSA, Who lives street address, postal code, name of the city Phone number Email address Hereafter referred as “the member”, party of the second part CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT This contract is signed for the weekly supply of shares of vegetables by the farmer. Each share approximately equals the average volume consumed by a family of four (two adults and two children). The farmer commits to attending the drop-off sessions, to producing in conformity with the Charter of the AMAP. She will supply produces from the farm to the AMAP members on a regular basis during all the season. She will keep her consumers informed on her know-how, on her practices and on the constraints. The member commits to honouring the Charter of the AMAP, its statutes and bylaw. He will also take part to the voluntary work for organising at least one drop-off session. For doing so, the member will be in contact with the AMAP coordinator. The determination of the type and of the quantity of the products to be provided is done by the producer and the members of the AMAP in accordance with each other. The contracting parties are interdependent in the face of the vagaries of production. Each delivery session is logistically organised by volunteering consumers (a calendar is held, where members can volunteer as delivery organisers). It is up to the consumer to tell the person in charge of the delivery well before in case she is unable to pick her share up, or if somebody else is taking it. CONTRACT LENGTH AND PAYMENT MECHANISMS This contract is signed for a six-months long farming season, starting March 13th 2009 and ending October 9th, 2009. The season consists of 23 deliveries. There won’t be any delivery on … The delivery will take place each Thursday, at the Community House of Trifouilli-les-Oies. The cost of a single share has been established, for Summer 2010, to 20,5 euros. Upfront payment of the shares will be operated according to a procedure, that can be chosen among the following possibilities: 1) All at once immediately following the signature of the contract, for the whole season: at the beginning of March, for a totality of 506 euros for 23 shares. 2) In 3 payments: the first during March, which will represent half of the cost of the season, the second and the third for the remaining half will not be paid before June and September (the payment can also be operated through 3 thirds). 3) The last possibility is to pay through a monthly check: all the checks will be handed out to the producer in March, but the producer will send them to her bank every month. The principle of CSA/AMAP is that the share is paid upfront. It means that whatever solution is chosen, the checks will be handed out all at once, when the contract is signed. All checks should bring the name of the beneficiary: … They should have the following date: March 13

th 2009.

The Share -AMAP/ Summer 2009/ Receipt for Mister C. Essay

46

As a confirmation for his commitment to purchase a weekly share of vegetables X Family Basket X Half a basket Drop-off point : name of the place, street address, postal code, name of the city Amount : Paid by cheque : details about each cheque (amount, reference of the cheque, name of the banque) Each contracting member is committed to take part to the voluntary work for the organisation of drop-off sessions, at least once during a season. Your contact during the season : phone numer : email : In Cityville, April, the 25th, 2009 - The Farmer : The Member :

Local groups can choose to take only Organic Guaranteed Farmers. Or they

might be a vegetarian group and use criteria related to this.

The Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) has been developing in very different agricultural contexts all over the world. It is often used as an informal

citizen alternative to the regular organic certification bodies. The third party

certification system is indeed perceived as both expensive, too technical and too bureaucratic. Small-scale grassroots producers consider controlling

companies as not trustworthy or independent enough.The idea of PGS is an alternative to this, avoiding the costs (although costs of soil tests etc. are still

involved), but more importantly creating understanding and sense of ownership among the consumers. The model involves consumer/co-op member

visits to the farm, where they are shown around the farm and have a list of points to go through with the grower.

Sample of text in the ‘Global PGS-newsletter’ by IFOAM, number 5,

volume 5, mai-june 2015

The first Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) in the Flemish region

of Belgium has just been launched !

In Flanders the network “Voedselteams” is well known for its promotion of

sustainable agriculture and short chain circuits. Today about 170 food

producers have joined the network. The consumer members are organized in

local groups, which enables them to order from a wide variety of locally

produced food (fruits and vegetables, milk products, bread, meat, drinks,

preparations, deserts…). As explained in the PGS-newsletter of March&April

2014, the PGS of Voedselteams is the result of a long period of extensive

research and networking. The main purpose was to include the members and

the farmers in the screening and evaluation of producers.The “introduction to

PGS” days organized in April and May 2015 were very successful as they were

47

attended by a total of more than 40 people. Aside from a few staff members

and producers, most of the people present were members who volunteered to

take an active part in the PGS-process. For them, it was a unique opportunity

to learn more about and to support a sustainable food production. They

engaged for a period of two years with two PGS-visits every season and a few

days dedicated to training. As for the producers, they will attend at least one

peer-to-peer visit for this period of two years. This way, two members as well

as a producer and a staff member will be present at every visit. A steering

group will also be created with all stakeholders (staff, members, producers).

For Voedselteams, this is the beginning of a new and exciting project and it is

also means that PGS is definitely gaining ground in Belgium.

Another example is the Climate Friendly Foods Participatory Guarantee System in the UK. The key feature of CFF's participatory certification is

farmer-to-farmer inspection which is recognised by the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM). For more information

see: www.climatefriendlyfood.org.uk/participatory_certification.

Building Block 21: Developing Membership

The majority of the AFDS that have been presented in this document rely on

an associative or cooperative structure, which collects yearly membership in order to cover the expenses of the local groups. This membership fee covers

the development of internet tools, insurance, support from regional facilitators for group-building, trainings, education.

In order to keep membership at a strong level, communication channels have to be efficient. In the Paniers Marseillais, an emanation of the French CSA

movement, each group is trying to keep a weekly newsletter alive, where the grower's activities are summed up, underlining potential issues, alongside

meetings' or conferences' announcements and recipes. Additionally, the PAMA network sends out a monthly newsletter, called “le Potimessage”, to its

members, describing the important events to come, talking about the association life and introducing a new producer (in 2015, there are 8 vegetable

growers and 62 producers of other types involved in the Paniers marseillais network).

The issue of raising membership is also a key aspect of everyday AFDS life. For Oma maa's farmer Jukka Lassila, from Tuusula, Finland, the most important is

the level of members' commitment. “For us, as a farmer-driven partnership, it is more coherent to ask for a substantial membership fee, that is actually more

like a cooperative share and that costs 200 euros. It is paid once and for all, and you actually get it back when you leave the project. It is a way to ensure

that those engaging with us are really committed in a long-term perspective and understand our project”. Even if, at the time this document is written,

Oma maa initiative is still in its fledgling stage, this systems seems to bear

48

some fruits. Indeed, some members are used to coming to the farm every

week, sometimes twice or three times a week, thus considering their voluntary

help as part of their commitment.

Many AFDS's actors would like to see their initiatives become less alternative and more mainstream. Their actors try to engage with all segments of society.

To elaborate further on one of the previous examples, the Paniers Marseillais work very hard to make the school children as well as the general public aware

of the link between healthy food, physical exercise and a good health, through interventions in schools and numerous events for a broader audience.

In Finland, the Urban Co-operative Farm in Helsinki received a lot of interest

from prospective members as soon as some tentative plans were made and the co-op was up and running within a few months.

49

Conclusion

Confronted to common issues, but acting in different contexts, stakeholders have come up with multiform, context -sensitive solutions. Let's take the issue

of finding the right balance between “simplicity – commitment” for example. A

direct selling system like REKO, on the one hand, and a contract and membership -based short supply chain like AlterConso, on the other hand,

gave very different answers to the same question: for AlterConso members, commitment is the top priority value even if the system might be more

complex, whereas REKO participants emphasize the simplicity over commitment both for farmers and consumers.

No matter how different do the building blocks look like, in size and shape. They are all answering the same needs, and they seem to form a common ground. There is indeed a sense of familiarity shared by all these initiatives.

This is not just the result of some coincidence. The REKO founder first

observed the AMAP groups in France, then tried to replicate the model before quickly realizing there should be adaptations to the local context to make it

viable. Similarly, the Helsinki Food Co-op is an ad hoc combination of AMAP and GartenCoop influences... These are just examples to measure the power of

pollination, cross-fertilization and dissemination of ideas and best practices, processes that keep happening all the time.

Capturing such a vibrant, continuously evolving movement, is a true challenge.

This collection of practices thus stands as a modest photograph, an instantané, taken at a given time. Through concrete examples, it provides a partial but

colorful depiction of various alternative food distribution systems. Yet, the work to monitor and transmit the local food actors' creativity is just starting. It

should continue in a long term perspective.

Therefore, this document, and its further developments, updates and extensions, is a mere contribution to make exchanges between initiatives even

more fruitful, ensuring an innovative future for the AFDS in Europe.